RE: Totally NOT a debate about the veracity of the gospels
March 14, 2014 at 2:25 pm
(This post was last modified: March 14, 2014 at 2:29 pm by discipulus.)
(March 14, 2014 at 1:48 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:(March 14, 2014 at 1:45 pm)discipulus Wrote: Divergence in detail and contradiction are two different things.
Except that the two Gospel accounts of Jesus' birth are completely different with exception to a few basics (Jesus' parents were named Joseph and Mary, angel appeared to her).
You cannot say the gospels are "completely different and then say "except"..
The except negates the completely.
And so what if they were completely different? Different and contradictory are not the same.
Now if you have a contradiction to point out then do so. Differences in details do not necessarily equate to contradictions in details.
You want them to be contradictory so bad, but why? So you can feel justified in dismissing the gospels?
You do not need a reason to do that. Just dismiss them as rubbish and move on. Just say you do not care if they are true or not. Anything but these feeble attempts at making them contradictory when they are not.
(March 14, 2014 at 1:52 pm)Bad Writer Wrote:(March 14, 2014 at 1:45 pm)discipulus Wrote: Divergence in detail and contradiction are two different things.
Oh, so that's how they do it in a court of law. Thank you for that clarification.
Yes they do.
Congruent yet independent accounts of a crime can be seen as evidence of collusion between the eyewitnesses. That is why investigators look for divergence in details but similarity in the major points. The divergence signifies that each individual is reporting what they saw in their own words (which is not going to be exactly the same as what another records) and the similitude of reports on the major points, i.e. that a man was shot in the head by a woman gives credence to their claims as eyewitnesses.
Accept it or leave it.
